John Searle's homunculus announces phased retirement

Posted 13 May 2013 by Richard B. Hoppe

Those who know John Searle's "Chinese Room" critique of the possibility of genuine consciousness in artificial/machine intelligences will enjoy this:

John Searle's homunculus announces phased retirement After 54 years of teaching at Berkeley, the man inside John Searle's head has announced he will be entering a three-year phased retirement after the end of the current semester. The diminutive Zhu Tao made the announcement at a press conference Monday in a rare out-of-costume appearance. At the conference Zhu said he is retiring from his current position in order to spend more time with Searle's family. "I have become quite attached to these people," Zhu said through a translator. "Although, admittedly, not being able to understand a word they say has limited the intimacy of our relationships." ... While he expressed sadness at the end of an era, Zhu looked back with pride at his time inside John Searle's head. Zhu is popularly credited with sparking the shift away from brain-based cognition. Today that shift continues apace, with figures such as Andy Clark and David Chalmers outsourcing their thinking to call centers in India as part of a growing movement of philosophers who believe cognition can extend beyond the boundaries of one's skull.

53 Comments

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 13 May 2013

I never met a homunculus that I didn't like.

Glen Davidson

Robert Byers · 13 May 2013

the only thing a creationist can squeeze from this IS about intelligence of machines as impossible.
Peopl;e aere made in Gods image and so think like a god. Our thinking is in our soul. Our brain is unrelated to this thinking but is only a middleman between the soul and the body.
Our memories only are of the material world and thus only these can fail.
Machines can only use memory and so can't think. Only endless organization of memory data.
Machines never have understanding as a thinking being.
Science fiction misses this point. SF says intelligence comes from increased memory ability.
In fact animals likely have as much or almost as much memory as people. Yet are hopelessly dumb.
Taking the soul out of the equation as the place of smarts has been the problem with understanding why artificial intelligence doesn't worl.

nobodythatmatters · 13 May 2013

if i hadn't read other posts from him, i might be inclined to think Byers' post is a really well done piece of performance art.

Just Bob · 13 May 2013

Robert Byers said: Our brain is unrelated to this thinking...

Robert, are there any other creationists/fundamentalists who agree with you that thinking and intelligence do not take place in the brain? Does AIG or any other organization believe that? If so could you provide links? Just out of curiosity, do you believe that emotions, thoughts, or anything else that we might call mental activity takes place in the heart (the actual, physical heart), like the Bible says?

didymos1120 · 13 May 2013

Science fiction misses this point. SF says intelligence comes from increased memory ability.

Amongst the many other things Byers hasn't read: science fiction.

harold · 13 May 2013

Consciousness/awareness is major puzzle.

For some reasons, humans are obsessed with connecting "consciousness" with "intelligence".

I think this obvious mistake arose because people tend to speculate about life on other planets, but they usually imply "intelligent" life, that is, life that could deliberately communicate with humans.

The mistake became perpetuated by the rise of computing, and thus the ability to use machines to do tasks that were formally considered to require human intelligence.

"Intelligence" is, to put it mildly, a very ambivalent word, but if we use it to refer to solving formal logic problems, machines already have far more intelligence than dogs.

Whatever consciousness is, it is not the same thing as ability to solve logical problems in a formal way.

We humans are aware of using our intelligence to solve problems with logic.

However, most of what we do with our awareness is monitor our emotional state. Even when we are using our brain to solve logical problems, emotion plays a huge part in the experience - satisfaction, frustration, anxiety, etc. Solving an intellectual problem is often an emotional experience.

It's trivially true that we can never be sure another being is aware, or merely perfectly mimicking awareness. That's Last Thursayism stuff. Of course we can't.

What we can be sure is that consciousness won't be human-like unless it is a consciousness that is aware but never in perfect control of its own instinctive and emotional drives.

Joe Felsenstein · 13 May 2013

(I rarely see anyone make a definition of consciousness). I always wondered whether, if there was a mouse in a forest, and inside its brain there was (in some sense) a "picture" of its surroundings, a picture that included a little icon for it itself, whether that was an earlyish stage of consciousness. The mouse's brain is saying "there is the rock, between the big tree and the little tree, and I am on the rock".

If that is consciousness, then worrying about whether the individual is coping with Existential Angst or Weltschmerz or the problem of an afterlife is a waste of time -- consciousness arose much earlier in evolution than these.

phhht · 13 May 2013

Robert Byers said: the only thing a creationist can squeeze from this IS about intelligence of machines as impossible.

There’s a theory that human intelligence stems from a single algorithm.

Scott F · 13 May 2013

I'm kind of partial to the hypothesis that the brain is simply very good at running a simulation of "people".

To be a successful social animal, one has to be able to understand and anticipate the actions of others in the social group. You have to assume there is someone inside the other person's head, and you have to figure out what they are seeing, what they might be thinking, and what they might do next. "What would that alpha-male do if I stole his bone?" So, the brain has to be able to "model" the other person, in some sense; to think about what the other person is thinking about.

Take it one little step further, and the same brain circuitry could be used to start thinking about what you're thinking about, and so could start to "model" the "self". Circle that loop once or twice and, viola! "Consciousness".

Take that same circuitry one tiny step further, and the "people" modeling brain lets you start seeing "intention" in everything around you, and viola! "Gods".

Henry J · 13 May 2013

Peopl;e aere made in Gods image and so think like a god.

So he thinks God isn't any smarter than a typical human being? Huh.

Marilyn · 14 May 2013

Just Bob said:
Robert Byers said: Our brain is unrelated to this thinking...
Robert, are there any other creationists/fundamentalists who agree with you that thinking and intelligence do not take place in the brain? Does AIG or any other organization believe that? If so could you provide links? Just out of curiosity, do you believe that emotions, thoughts, or anything else that we might call mental activity takes place in the heart (the actual, physical heart), like the Bible says?

I know you've asked Robert but as far as I know emotions, thoughts, mental activity can lead to heart attacks indirectly or otherwise for some people its possible they might have a weak heart in some way. Others show they can stand more adverse outside affects towards their body or mind, often people say "stop I can't stand anymore". As far as I know it's not that the thinking takes place in the heart but it can effect it.

Paul Burnett · 14 May 2013

Marilyn said: As far as I know it's not that the thinking takes place in the heart but it can effect it.

Thinking does not take place in the big toe, but the brain can affect the big toe when choosing to not wear steel-toe boots in an industrial setting.

harold · 14 May 2013

Paul Burnett said:
Marilyn said: As far as I know it's not that the thinking takes place in the heart but it can effect it.
Thinking does not take place in the big toe, but the brain can affect the big toe when choosing to not wear steel-toe boots in an industrial setting.

In fairness, Marilynn makes a better point than that here. There is extensive two way interaction between cognition, mood/emotion, and basic physiology. The mere existence of the adrenal gland alone makes this point trivial. If you use your cognitive abilities to read something, and it stresses you, among many other things, odds are that your body may shift the balance of things like epinephrine and corticosteroids, which will impact on your immune, cardiovascular, and nutritional/metabolic systems. It works the other way, too. If I can arrange an event that impacts on your adrenal before your conscious brain is aware of it, it will nevertheless have a strong impact on how you consciously feel, fairly quickly. There's nothing magic about it.

Joe Felsenstein said: (I rarely see anyone make a definition of consciousness). I always wondered whether, if there was a mouse in a forest, and inside its brain there was (in some sense) a "picture" of its surroundings, a picture that included a little icon for it itself, whether that was an earlyish stage of consciousness. The mouse's brain is saying "there is the rock, between the big tree and the little tree, and I am on the rock". If that is consciousness, then worrying about whether the individual is coping with Existential Angst or Weltschmerz or the problem of an afterlife is a waste of time -- consciousness arose much earlier in evolution than these.

However, the problem, and for me, the mystery, is that the evaluation of the environment carries an emotional tone. Arguably, that is consciousness. Arguably, a machine with sensors is already as conscious as a mouse or dog or human in terms of non-emotional monitoring of the environment. "Existential angst" and the "problem of evil" are the same thing, except that existential angst doesn't make unwarranted assumptions. The problem they both state is "for some reason the environment makes us feel certain ways, involuntarily, and for some reason, it's very easy for it to make us have very bad feelings. Why is that?" "Problem of evil" bothers to project a wish fulfilling deity who for some reason doesn't fulfill wishes exactly as expected, but remove that extraneous element, and the issue is the same. In fact, it's actually quite a bit easier for it to make us have bad feelings. Making a human contented is quite a hard job, but making a human miserable is fairly easy to accomplish. The Buddhist answer, also noted by many others, is more or less "it just does but you can train yourself to make it bother you less". But that's just a method of dealing with the impact of consciousness, not an answer about where consciousness came from.

“What would that alpha-male do if I stole his bone?” So, the brain has to be able to “model” the other person, in some sense; to think about what the other person is thinking about.

That's an interesting thought. I would be more inclined to think that empathy - mirroring of the emotional state of others - developed in parallel or later. Remember, again, mirroring does not consist of merely reading how others will react in a calculating way. We instinctively feel what others feel. Of interest, people who largely lack empathy do try to predict and manipulate others without the guidance of the emotional mirroring. Sometimes they are quite effective, but overall, they are less effective. A very powerful modern human defense mechanism is to model ourselves as purely rational, planning actors. However, this is false. If it weren't for all the emotional and instinctive motivations, why plan at all? What's the point of catching a fish for dinner or getting a PhD in biophysics if you don't feel anything? There would be none. A thin layer of ability to partly keep emotional responses in check and plan logically overlies an animal brain dominated by emotion and mood. And our experience of consciousness is mainly dominated by the emotion and mood.

TomS · 14 May 2013

Creationists ought to be aware that many of their arguments against evolution were used in the 18th century as arguments for the homunculus (preformationism). Only that they were better arguments the first time around: There was a real theory of preformationism (while there is no theory of creationism); As arguments against evolution, they often suffer from the fallacies of composition or division. And one can be forgiven for making a flawed argument for the first time.

harold · 14 May 2013

In addition to the theory of evolution, one other idea that is supported by multiple converging lines of evidence is that humans simply can't ever "know everything".

This is supported by the formal mathematical work of Godel, and by twentieth century physics.

In terms of "consciousness", it's trivially supported by the fact that although we have evolved the ability to literally "feel what our brain guesses what others feel", there does not seem to be any way for us to literally "feel what others feel".

We can understand a great deal within a wide range of scales of observation, but we just can't know everything, and we have to deal with it.

harold · 14 May 2013

TomS said: Creationists ought to be aware that many of their arguments against evolution were used in the 18th century as arguments for the homunculus (preformationism). Only that they were better arguments the first time around: There was a real theory of preformationism (while there is no theory of creationism); As arguments against evolution, they often suffer from the fallacies of composition or division. And one can be forgiven for making a flawed argument for the first time.

The YEC side of ID/creationism sometimes uses arguments that were once good, testable arguments but which have been tested and shown already to be false. The ID side of ID/creationism, in an effort to give YEC "plausible deniability", presents deliberately obfuscatory bafflegab, which in the end merely breaks down into logical flaws and internal inconsistencies. (The YEC side does this, too, sometimes, but at other times uses arguments that were formally reasonable, before the evidence was in.) Is one of these "worse" than the other? I used to think that ID was "even worse" than straight YEC, but they're really just two common styles of being less than honest. Directly make a statement that is contrary to the known evidence, or spin webs of bafflegab.

John Harshman · 14 May 2013

TomS said: Creationists ought to be aware that many of their arguments against evolution were used in the 18th century as arguments for the homunculus (preformationism).

That's a different homunculus. The one we're talking about here is the little man inside your head that is the seat of consciousness. The one you're talking about is the little man inside an egg (or is it a sperm?)that just has to grow a bit in order to become an adult. Now presumably, homunculus #2 would include a tiny little homunculus #1 that just has to grow a bit in order to become your consciousness.

phhht · 14 May 2013

John Harshman said:
TomS said: Creationists ought to be aware that many of their arguments against evolution were used in the 18th century as arguments for the homunculus (preformationism).
That's a different homunculus. The one we're talking about here is the little man inside your head that is the seat of consciousness. The one you're talking about is the little man inside an egg (or is it a sperm?)that just has to grow a bit in order to become an adult. Now presumably, homunculus #2 would include a tiny little homunculus #1 that just has to grow a bit in order to become your consciousness.

Homunculi, homuncula, hominculi, hominculah-hah-hah...

Robert Byers · 15 May 2013

Just Bob said:
Robert Byers said: Our brain is unrelated to this thinking...
Robert, are there any other creationists/fundamentalists who agree with you that thinking and intelligence do not take place in the brain? Does AIG or any other organization believe that? If so could you provide links? Just out of curiosity, do you believe that emotions, thoughts, or anything else that we might call mental activity takes place in the heart (the actual, physical heart), like the Bible says?

It should be foundation one that our soul is the only thing that thinks. Our brain is left behind at death but it makes no difference or Christianity is wrong about the afterlife. There are no such things as emotions. There are just thoughts. Emotions is a careless way people strive to explain a mix of thoughts. It takes place in the soul of which the heart just means the core of it. Not the pumping muscle thing. There is no evidence that the brain has anything to do with intelligence. Its just a presumption since the concept of the soul lost favour. They just need a place for the thinking being. Then problems with thinking are explained, sadly, as problems with the mechanical brain. Hard to fix. Yet in reality, I say, all thinking problems, like retardation,autisms, depressions, phobias, schizo's, and so on , are simply related to the only material element of our thinking. Our memory. Or rather the triggering mechanism for the memory. Our memorys are all fantastic. Yet the trigger fails easily or is disturbed by thoughts. Our thoughts of coarse are very relevat to how the memory is triggered. Creationism presumptions can, I am confident, contribute to healing on the problems in thinking. Evolutionism has gotten in the way of a better analysis of these matters.

DS · 15 May 2013

Once again Robert ignores entire fields of science desperately trying to stick to his ancient myths and legends. At least he was right about one thing, there really is no evidence that his brain has anything to do with intelligence. Do you think he realizes that this kind of hocus pocus vitalism nonsense was abandoned hundreds of years ago? Of "coarse" not. (Since this error has been pointed out to him at least a dozen times, I can only conclude that it is deliberate, not that that's "relevat").

Keelyn · 15 May 2013

Robert Byers said:
Just Bob said:
Robert Byers said: Our brain is unrelated to this thinking...
Robert, are there any other creationists/fundamentalists who agree with you that thinking and intelligence do not take place in the brain? Does AIG or any other organization believe that? If so could you provide links? Just out of curiosity, do you believe that emotions, thoughts, or anything else that we might call mental activity takes place in the heart (the actual, physical heart), like the Bible says?
It should be foundation one that our soul is the only thing that thinks. Our brain is left behind at death but it makes no difference or Christianity is wrong about the afterlife. There are no such things as emotions. There are just thoughts. Emotions is a careless way people strive to explain a mix of thoughts. It takes place in the soul of which the heart just means the core of it. Not the pumping muscle thing. There is no evidence that the brain has anything to do with intelligence. Its just a presumption since the concept of the soul lost favour. They just need a place for the thinking being. Then problems with thinking are explained, sadly, as problems with the mechanical brain. Hard to fix. Yet in reality, I say, all thinking problems, like retardation,autisms, depressions, phobias, schizo's, and so on , are simply related to the only material element of our thinking. Our memory. Or rather the triggering mechanism for the memory. Our memorys are all fantastic. Yet the trigger fails easily or is disturbed by thoughts. Our thoughts of coarse are very relevat to how the memory is triggered. Creationism presumptions can, I am confident, contribute to healing on the problems in thinking. Evolutionism has gotten in the way of a better analysis of these matters.

LOL!!!! Oh Booby, you crack me up! Clearly, you provide your own evidence that your brain does not have anything to do with intelligence; we can definitely agree on that!

Keelyn · 15 May 2013

Robert Byers said:
Just Bob said:
Robert Byers said: Our brain is unrelated to this thinking...
Robert, are there any other creationists/fundamentalists who agree with you that thinking and intelligence do not take place in the brain? Does AIG or any other organization believe that? If so could you provide links? Just out of curiosity, do you believe that emotions, thoughts, or anything else that we might call mental activity takes place in the heart (the actual, physical heart), like the Bible says?
It should be foundation one that our soul is the only thing that thinks. Our brain is left behind at death but it makes no difference or Christianity is wrong about the afterlife. There are no such things as emotions. There are just thoughts. Emotions is a careless way people strive to explain a mix of thoughts. It takes place in the soul of which the heart just means the core of it. Not the pumping muscle thing. There is no evidence that the brain has anything to do with intelligence. Its just a presumption since the concept of the soul lost favour. They just need a place for the thinking being. Then problems with thinking are explained, sadly, as problems with the mechanical brain. Hard to fix. Yet in reality, I say, all thinking problems, like retardation,autisms, depressions, phobias, schizo's, and so on , are simply related to the only material element of our thinking. Our memory. Or rather the triggering mechanism for the memory. Our memorys are all fantastic. Yet the trigger fails easily or is disturbed by thoughts. Our thoughts of coarse are very relevat to how the memory is triggered. Creationism presumptions can, I am confident, contribute to healing on the problems in thinking. Evolutionism has gotten in the way of a better analysis of these matters.

Just one more example of a brain (or soul, if you insist, Booby) on Sunday fundie-ism!

RPST · 15 May 2013

Robert Byers said:
Just Bob said:
Robert Byers said: Our brain is unrelated to this thinking...
Robert, are there any other creationists/fundamentalists who agree with you that thinking and intelligence do not take place in the brain? Does AIG or any other organization believe that? If so could you provide links? Just out of curiosity, do you believe that emotions, thoughts, or anything else that we might call mental activity takes place in the heart (the actual, physical heart), like the Bible says?
~~It should be foundation one that our soul is the only thing that thinks. Our brain is left behind at death but it makes no difference or~~ Christianity is wrong about the afterlife. There are no such things as emotions. There are just thoughts. Emotions is a careless way people strive to explain a mix of thoughts. It takes place in the soul of which the heart just means the core of it. Not the pumping muscle thing. There is no evidence that the brain has anything to do with intelligence. Its just a presumption since the concept of the soul lost favour. They just need a place for the thinking being. Then problems with thinking are explained, sadly, as problems with the mechanical brain. Hard to fix. Yet in reality, I say, all thinking problems, like retardation,autisms, depressions, phobias, schizo's, and so on , are simply related to the only material element of our thinking. Our memory. Or rather the triggering mechanism for the memory. Our memorys are all fantastic. Yet the trigger fails easily or is disturbed by thoughts. Our thoughts of coarse are very relevat to how the memory is triggered. Creationism presumptions can, I am confident, contribute to healing on the problems in thinking. Evolutionism has gotten in the way of a better analysis of these matters.

Robert, I corrected some minor errors in what you wrote. Hope this helps.

DS · 15 May 2013

RPST said: Robert, I corrected some minor errors in what you wrote. Hope this helps.

Of coarse it does.

Tenncrain · 15 May 2013

Byers, a reminder:

When are you going to get around to discussing SINE insertions? Here's a link to the relevant post: http://pandasthumb.org/bw/index.html#comment-300136 What about finally giving us a full review of Sean B Carroll’s evo-devo book Endless Forms Most Beautiful (click here)? Remember, it's a popular level book for the public. Are you ever going to address this Christian link concerning Christian scientists that accept and routinely use radiometric dating? You repeatedly look away and run from this (Byers, click here to see).

It's fine if any reply by Byers is posted - or moved - to the Bathroom Wall.

Just Bob · 15 May 2013

Robert, after all that, you didn't answer my question: Are there any other creationists/fundamentalists who agree with you that thinking and intelligence do not take place in the brain? Does AIG or any other organization believe that? If so could you provide links?

Or are you so divorced from reality that even AIG or ICR doesn't back you?

Robert Byers · 15 May 2013

Just Bob said: Robert, after all that, you didn't answer my question: Are there any other creationists/fundamentalists who agree with you that thinking and intelligence do not take place in the brain? Does AIG or any other organization believe that? If so could you provide links? Or are you so divorced from reality that even AIG or ICR doesn't back you?

i did answer . Or rather I've never takewn a vote. I presume most YEC creationists would agree the brain is unrelated to ones thinking. We are souls in a machine. WE are niot the machine as evolution teaches. AIG or ICR surely have not discussed it but they should. Its something creationism can demonstrate to have better answers for important matters. Challenging presumptions and seeing truths better.

TomS · 16 May 2013

Robert Byers said: I presume most YEC creationists would agree the brain is unrelated to ones thinking.

That is a mighty sweeping proposition. Unrelated to thinking? Despite it being obvious that blows to the head, consumption of certain chemicals, several diseases, some physical exercises, and even just sleep can have a profound effect on one's thinking? We don't have to make investigations of the electric activity of the brain as correlated with thinking - just drink a few ounces of alcohol and see that there is a relationship.

DS · 16 May 2013

Robert Byers said:
Just Bob said: Robert, after all that, you didn't answer my question: Are there any other creationists/fundamentalists who agree with you that thinking and intelligence do not take place in the brain? Does AIG or any other organization believe that? If so could you provide links? Or are you so divorced from reality that even AIG or ICR doesn't back you?
i did answer . Or rather I've never takewn a vote. I presume most YEC creationists would agree the brain is unrelated to ones thinking. We are souls in a machine. WE are niot the machine as evolution teaches. AIG or ICR surely have not discussed it but they should. Its something creationism can demonstrate to have better answers for important matters. Challenging presumptions and seeing truths better.

In other words, I don't know, couldn't even be bothered to find out and just assume that everyone agrees with me or they are wrong. And if you demand just one example, I'll just claim I have never "takewn a vote" and pretend that that is somehow responsive, even though everyone one can see that it is just a desperate attempt to avoid the obvious conclusion. We are physical entities. There is no evidence that there is anything else. Claiming there is is not evidence. But then Robert has never offered one bit of evidence for any claim he has ever made. He can be safely ignored. As for the alcohol test, it seems likely that that is what has produced the current "thinking", so once again Robert is self refuting.

Jim · 16 May 2013

Arguments about the location of the mind are rather more subtle and complicated than Robert Byers vs brain-in-a-bottle even if you don't completely accept the Chinese room bit. You don't have to be a dualist to think that mere neural activity doesn't suffice, not because consciousness requires a separable soul but because you can make a pretty good case that it damned well requires a world.

Marilyn · 16 May 2013

Once all the genes have finished their work and the living body is in place and up and going there are certain fundamentals that have to be learnt for it to proceed to function within the whole environment and it learns to use its intelligence in the right way to make proper intelligent decisions. Intelligence is an item within the human make up. Intelligence is applied by the human to continue. There is a varied quantity of intelligence and not all have the same. Some have more than others, but the ones that have less are not a lesser human, if what they have is put to good use they may have a better outcome than those who have a lot. AI usually is focused to accomplish a set goal. Human intelligence is applied in a different set of rules. But there is a lot to be learnt from Asimov's set of rules to me they seem to be quite intelligent set of rules.

Just Bob · 16 May 2013

Robert, you're WRONG. No other creationist, anywhere, thinks that thinking does NOT take place in the brain. You're the only one who thinks that. Other creationists are embarrassed to read that stuff, and wish you'd shut up about such patently silly nonsense.

Prove me wrong. ASK AIG or ICR or the DI, then post their answer here.

Robert Byers · 16 May 2013

TomS said:
Robert Byers said: I presume most YEC creationists would agree the brain is unrelated to ones thinking.
That is a mighty sweeping proposition. Unrelated to thinking? Despite it being obvious that blows to the head, consumption of certain chemicals, several diseases, some physical exercises, and even just sleep can have a profound effect on one's thinking? We don't have to make investigations of the electric activity of the brain as correlated with thinking - just drink a few ounces of alcohol and see that there is a relationship.

These things affect thinking but are not evidence they affect the brain. Rather they all just affect the memory. Being drunk is just a interference to the memory. People drink to forget often. I don't think it could be demonstrated a single thing affects our thinking but just affecting our brain. Except where it is only or includes the memory. I do see all problems as simply the issue of the triggering mechanism for the memory. No reason to invoke brain things. Its just implying we are just components of the brain machine. In fact its just a middle man between our thinking soul and our body. Animals show this also by having great memories despite little intelligence relatively.

Robert Byers · 16 May 2013

Marilyn said: Once all the genes have finished their work and the living body is in place and up and going there are certain fundamentals that have to be learnt for it to proceed to function within the whole environment and it learns to use its intelligence in the right way to make proper intelligent decisions. Intelligence is an item within the human make up. Intelligence is applied by the human to continue. There is a varied quantity of intelligence and not all have the same. Some have more than others, but the ones that have less are not a lesser human, if what they have is put to good use they may have a better outcome than those who have a lot. AI usually is focused to accomplish a set goal. Human intelligence is applied in a different set of rules. But there is a lot to be learnt from Asimov's set of rules to me they seem to be quite intelligent set of rules.

I don't agree. There is no difference in intelligence potential in human beings. We are not machines or animals. We are mini gods. WE think with fantastic reasoning. after that its just a matter of learnt things. This the result of place and motivation. your idea takes from man a soul and takes his thinking from the soul. It makes just complicated machines. That can break down and affect out intelligence innately. I say our intelligence CAN NOT be affected by any material breakdown save in the only material element we share with the rest of biology. That is the memory. This is the only thing that breaks down. Savants reveal this dramatically but all retardations and autisms show great memory in this and and terrible memory in that. If true healing should not be as difficult as fixing the brain wires and juices.

PA Poland · 16 May 2013

Robert Byers said:
TomS said:
Robert Byers said: I presume most YEC creationists would agree the brain is unrelated to ones thinking.
That is a mighty sweeping proposition. Unrelated to thinking? Despite it being obvious that blows to the head, consumption of certain chemicals, several diseases, some physical exercises, and even just sleep can have a profound effect on one's thinking? We don't have to make investigations of the electric activity of the brain as correlated with thinking - just drink a few ounces of alcohol and see that there is a relationship.
These things affect thinking but are not evidence they affect the brain.

Examination of REALITY show that they do indeed affect the brain. They alter the activities of the cells that make up the brain, which has affects on thinking. Continuing the blubbering idiocy :

Rather they all just affect the memory. Being drunk is just a interference to the memory. People drink to forget often. I don't think it could be demonstrated a single thing affects our thinking but just affecting our brain. Except where it is only or includes the memory.

Phineas Gage. Took a railroad spike through his brain. ALTERED HIS PERSONALITY without him losing any of his other faculties. The effects of psychoactive drugs demonstrate that you a gibbering imbecile - how, EXACTLY, does a hallucination qualify as 'interference to memory' ? Pretty much all research ever done on brain activity shows that altering brain function alters thinking. You seem to have this pathological need for dualism - there simply MUST BE a tiny Magical Being inside your skull pulling the levers and throwing the switches to make you work.

I do see all problems as simply the issue of the triggering mechanism for the memory. No reason to invoke brain things. Its just implying we are just components of the brain machine.

We ARE components of the brain machine - and it is part of us. Got something resembling EVIDENCE to the contrary ?

In fact its just a middle man between our thinking soul and our body. Animals show this also by having great memories despite little intelligence relatively.

RiiIIiiIIIiiiIIiight ! The EVIDENCE that this Magical Middle Man actually exists is what again ? Oh, right - your pathological fear of evolution and reality forces you to invent magical, undetectable, unknowable beings to 'explain' things that are beyond your limited comprehension. A 'soul' is just what a functioning brain does, not a separate entity. Alter or destroy the brain running the 'soul program', the person ends. A stomach digests food; would you blubber that it merely houses a 'digestion spirit' because you are ignorant of how it truly works ?

Marilyn · 17 May 2013

Speaking of Robots this might be of interest
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22556987

TomS · 17 May 2013

Robert Byers said: These things affect thinking but are not evidence they affect the brain. ... I don't think it could be demonstrated a single thing affects our thinking but just affecting our brain.

No comment necessary.

Henry J · 17 May 2013

there simply MUST BE a tiny Magical Being inside your skull pulling the levers and throwing the switches to make you work.

He should sue that being for incompetence!

Robert Byers · 18 May 2013

PA Poland said:
Robert Byers said:
TomS said:
Robert Byers said: I presume most YEC creationists would agree the brain is unrelated to ones thinking.
That is a mighty sweeping proposition. Unrelated to thinking? Despite it being obvious that blows to the head, consumption of certain chemicals, several diseases, some physical exercises, and even just sleep can have a profound effect on one's thinking? We don't have to make investigations of the electric activity of the brain as correlated with thinking - just drink a few ounces of alcohol and see that there is a relationship.
These things affect thinking but are not evidence they affect the brain.
Examination of REALITY show that they do indeed affect the brain. They alter the activities of the cells that make up the brain, which has affects on thinking. Continuing the blubbering idiocy :
Rather they all just affect the memory. Being drunk is just a interference to the memory. People drink to forget often. I don't think it could be demonstrated a single thing affects our thinking but just affecting our brain. Except where it is only or includes the memory.
Phineas Gage. Took a railroad spike through his brain. ALTERED HIS PERSONALITY without him losing any of his other faculties. The effects of psychoactive drugs demonstrate that you a gibbering imbecile - how, EXACTLY, does a hallucination qualify as 'interference to memory' ? Pretty much all research ever done on brain activity shows that altering brain function alters thinking. You seem to have this pathological need for dualism - there simply MUST BE a tiny Magical Being inside your skull pulling the levers and throwing the switches to make you work.
I do see all problems as simply the issue of the triggering mechanism for the memory. No reason to invoke brain things. Its just implying we are just components of the brain machine.
We ARE components of the brain machine - and it is part of us. Got something resembling EVIDENCE to the contrary ?
In fact its just a middle man between our thinking soul and our body. Animals show this also by having great memories despite little intelligence relatively.
RiiIIiiIIIiiiIIiight ! The EVIDENCE that this Magical Middle Man actually exists is what again ? Oh, right - your pathological fear of evolution and reality forces you to invent magical, undetectable, unknowable beings to 'explain' things that are beyond your limited comprehension. A 'soul' is just what a functioning brain does, not a separate entity. Alter or destroy the brain running the 'soul program', the person ends. A stomach digests food; would you blubber that it merely houses a 'digestion spirit' because you are ignorant of how it truly works ?

Saying cells are affected is saying nothing. The actual machine parts being affected are and need only be seen as the memory part. Actually drugs makes my case. They do affect people exactly as other problems do. Yet thge brain is not hurt by drugs or have lingering affects after a episode . This because only the memory is being affected. LSD practically mimics many autisms in its result. Drugs simply distort the memory/focusing by affecting the triggering mechanism I think. They don't affect the brain at all. The brain is a serious machine and can't be fiddled with. Drugs are almost harmless unless used too much including getting addicted. Addition itself a thing of memory . Perhaps affecting the nervous system memory. Alcohol or drugs do the same thing. They interrupt the ordering of the memory and so how the memory translates information.

PA Poland · 18 May 2013

Robert Byers said:
PA Poland said:
Robert Byers said:
TomS said:
Robert Byers said: I presume most YEC creationists would agree the brain is unrelated to ones thinking.
That is a mighty sweeping proposition. Unrelated to thinking? Despite it being obvious that blows to the head, consumption of certain chemicals, several diseases, some physical exercises, and even just sleep can have a profound effect on one's thinking? We don't have to make investigations of the electric activity of the brain as correlated with thinking - just drink a few ounces of alcohol and see that there is a relationship.
These things affect thinking but are not evidence they affect the brain.
Examination of REALITY show that they do indeed affect the brain. They alter the activities of the cells that make up the brain, which has affects on thinking. Continuing the blubbering idiocy :
Rather they all just affect the memory. Being drunk is just a interference to the memory. People drink to forget often. I don't think it could be demonstrated a single thing affects our thinking but just affecting our brain. Except where it is only or includes the memory.
Phineas Gage. Took a railroad spike through his brain. ALTERED HIS PERSONALITY without him losing any of his other faculties. The effects of psychoactive drugs demonstrate that you a gibbering imbecile - how, EXACTLY, does a hallucination qualify as 'interference to memory' ? Pretty much all research ever done on brain activity shows that altering brain function alters thinking. You seem to have this pathological need for dualism - there simply MUST BE a tiny Magical Being inside your skull pulling the levers and throwing the switches to make you work.
I do see all problems as simply the issue of the triggering mechanism for the memory. No reason to invoke brain things. Its just implying we are just components of the brain machine.
We ARE components of the brain machine - and it is part of us. Got something resembling EVIDENCE to the contrary ?
In fact its just a middle man between our thinking soul and our body. Animals show this also by having great memories despite little intelligence relatively.
RiiIIiiIIIiiiIIiight ! The EVIDENCE that this Magical Middle Man actually exists is what again ? Oh, right - your pathological fear of evolution and reality forces you to invent magical, undetectable, unknowable beings to 'explain' things that are beyond your limited comprehension. A 'soul' is just what a functioning brain does, not a separate entity. Alter or destroy the brain running the 'soul program', the person ends. A stomach digests food; would you blubber that it merely houses a 'digestion spirit' because you are ignorant of how it truly works ?
Saying cells are affected is saying nothing. The actual machine parts being affected are and need only be seen as the memory part.

Just HOW willfully stupid are you ?! It is not MEMORY that is affected with drugs, twit : IT IS ACTUAL PROCESSING. How often or how readily a neuron will fire can be altered with drugs. This has been known for quite some time. How, EXACTLY, is a drug-induced HALLUCINATION a result of defective memory ? When someone is seeing something that isn't there, it is their PROCESSING that is off kilter, not their memory ! Your willful ignorance is most astounding ! You seem to have this pathological need to see Magical Sky Pixies behind EVERY single thing that is beyond your incredibly limited comprehension. There is no story STUPID or RIDICULOUS enough that you will not resort to to avoid facing reality - if reality shows that drugs alter the brain which alters thinking, you attempt to handwave it all away, psychotically fixated on the silly idea that YOUR ignorance-based, evidence-free gibberings are more relevant than decades of real world observations. Again, twit : Phineas Gage had a railroad spike driven through his brain. HIS MEMORY AND OTHER MENTAL FACULTIES WERE NOT OVERLY DAMAGED (those were the first things the physicians checked), but his personality certainly was. How, EXACTLY, does your silly-arsed 'model' about Magical supernatural beings explain that ?

Actually drugs makes my case. They do affect people exactly as other problems do. Yet the brain is not hurt by drugs or have lingering affects after a episode . This because only the memory is being affected. LSD practically mimics many autisms in its result.

THOSE HAVE GOT TO THE BE THE STUPIDEST COMMENTS I'VE EVER HAD THE MISFORTUNE OF READING ! The brain is indeed hurt by drugs. There ARE sometimes lingering effects. MORE than memory is being affected. I must ask - how far did you have to shove your head up your own arse to state something that mind-numbingly WRONG ? Initiating standard "I don't know anything about anything, but I'll bleat like I'm an expert !" vomitus :

Drugs simply distort the memory/focusing by affecting the triggering mechanism I think. They don't affect the brain at all. The brain is a serious machine and can't be fiddled with.

Drugs WORK BECAUSE THEY AFFECT THE BRAIN, twit ! The brain can indeed be fiddled with. By many different things. You castrated your OWN argument - if drugs didn't affect the brain, THEY COULD NOT AFFECT 'TRIGGERING MECHANISMS' ! In order for your own imbecilic 'model' to work, drugs MUST have an affect on the brain.

Drugs are almost harmless unless used too much including getting addicted. Addition itself a thing of memory . Perhaps affecting the nervous system memory.

Wow - just how big IS your colon anyway ? You keep pulling ever more ridiculous things out of your backside with each passing comment ! Once again, you castrated your own argument - if drugs can affect memory, THEY ARE AFFECTING THE BRAIN. You are merely too willfully stupid to accept or understand that, given your pathological need to believe that there is a supernatural force in your head that does the actual thinking.

Alcohol or drugs do the same thing. They interrupt the ordering of the memory and so how the memory translates information.

And you castrated your own argument yet again - if alcohol and drugs are affecting memory, THEY ARE AFFECTING THE BRAIN. 'Interrupting how memory translates information' is just an imbecile's way of saying 'chemicals alter the way the brain works', which means your silly 'the brain does not think - the magical being in your head does !!' confabulation is unsupported and wrong.

DS · 18 May 2013

Well he does seem to have proven that "drugs makes his case". HIs problems no doubt stem from drug and alcohol abuse. Hence the inability to learn even the simplest things, such as the difference between coarse and course or the capital of canada.

Robert, please google "brain scan" and learn about how an MRI works. When you can explain it in your own words, then you can tell everybody about how thinking doesn't take place in the brain. Until then, STFU. If you think with your soul, you should get a new one, the one you have seems to be defective.

Helena Constantine · 18 May 2013

What is the point of just automatically gainsaying everything Byers says? doens't it get tedious after awhile? Especially when it lead you reflexively into error? Here is an article from Answers, the house organ of AIG, that argues very closely to Byers: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/human-brain-soul "The aim is to show that the soul is not only the bearer of life and the first cause and director of the body’s structural development and functions, but also identical to the person/self."

Just Bob said: Robert, you're WRONG. No other creationist, anywhere, thinks that thinking does NOT take place in the brain. You're the only one who thinks that. Other creationists are embarrassed to read that stuff, and wish you'd shut up about such patently silly nonsense. Prove me wrong. ASK AIG or ICR or the DI, then post their answer here.

Helena Constantine · 18 May 2013

Have you ever seen a baby whose mother was addicted to crack? Or even just used alcohol while pregnant? There is no limit to either your inhumanity or your ignorance, is there?

Robert Byers said: They do affect people exactly as other problems do. Yet thge brain is not hurt by drugs or have lingering affects after a episode . This because only the memory is being affected. LSD practically mimics many autisms in its result. Drugs simply distort the memory/focusing by affecting the triggering mechanism I think. They don't affect the brain at all. The brain is a serious machine and can't be fiddled with. Drugs are almost harmless unless used too much including getting addicted. Addition itself a thing of memory . Perhaps affecting the nervous system memory. Alcohol or drugs do the same thing. They interrupt the ordering of the memory and so how the memory translates information.

Just Bob · 18 May 2013

Helena Constantine said: Here is an article from Answers...

Dang it, you did his homework for him. I would so much have liked to see RB read that scholarly paper and interpret its contentions in his own words. My blunt denial of his position was meant as a challenge to see if he would actually do anything to support his maunderings.

Keelyn · 18 May 2013

DS said: Well he does seem to have proven that "drugs makes his case". HIs problems no doubt stem from drug and alcohol abuse. Hence the inability to learn even the simplest things, such as the difference between coarse and course or the capital of canada. Robert, please google "brain scan" and learn about how an MRI works. When you can explain it in your own words, then you can tell everybody about how thinking doesn't take place in the brain. Until then, STFU. If you think with your soul, you should get a new one, the one you have seems to be defective.

I think his problem is a lack of drugs. Surely, he must have been prescribed something by now that he is neglecting to take on a regular basis.

harold · 19 May 2013

Helena Constantine said: Have you ever seen a baby whose mother was addicted to crack? Or even just used alcohol while pregnant? There is no limit to either your inhumanity or your ignorance, is there?
Robert Byers said: They do affect people exactly as other problems do. Yet thge brain is not hurt by drugs or have lingering affects after a episode . This because only the memory is being affected. LSD practically mimics many autisms in its result. Drugs simply distort the memory/focusing by affecting the triggering mechanism I think. They don't affect the brain at all. The brain is a serious machine and can't be fiddled with. Drugs are almost harmless unless used too much including getting addicted. Addition itself a thing of memory . Perhaps affecting the nervous system memory. Alcohol or drugs do the same thing. They interrupt the ordering of the memory and so how the memory translates information.

At this point, in agreement with the tone of your comments, I'm going to make a related point, and state my objection to the frequent use of language that demeans people living with mental illness, developmental delays, neurologic problems, or substance dependency, that characterize the replies to Robert Byers. I do not remotely mean to imply that I am superior and above reproach, that is obviously not the case. We all know that one of the reasons, not the only reason but one of the reasons, that we visit this site, is to blow off steam by really pounding on a set of ideas that are not only prototypical of our society's hypocrisy and stupidity, but which also have the "advantage" of being objectively wrong and logically incoherent (note that I am talking about ideas here, not individual people), which makes them both especially dangerous but also especially easy to argue against. Robert Byers is completely wrong about the brain, will never concede to being wrong, and probably will never, of course, be able to process the idea that he could be wrong. So be it. That's the case with all creationists. They couldn't be creationists if it weren't. Byers is actually less prone to hurl threats and false accusations than most, and his arguments are no worse. Casey Luskin may have better grammar and more personal guile, but at the end of the day, persistently repeating arguments that can be shown to be wrong is pretty much the same thing. Although Robert Byers may or may not suffer from one of the broad categories of medical issues I mentioned above, there is a negative association between these issues and active, harmful, political advocacy of science denial. With the plausible exception of substance deficiency, most harm-doing science deniers, although far from psychologically healthy in a sense, are free enough from major mental illness or developmental delay to achieve social and political roles of influence. Therefore, to allow oneself to become incensed to the point of using language that denigrates vulnerable people, when the real goal is to defend sound science and critique socially prominent science deniers, is probably sub-optimal. To fully, fully clarify, given that reading comprehension often seems to be an issue on the internet, I am replying to Helena Constantine because she expressed similar sentiments to the related ones I now expand upon.

Red Right Hand · 19 May 2013

Rather they all just affect the memory. Being drunk is just a interference to the memory. People drink to forget often.

I'm afraid Bobby's right, folks. I know when I drink to forget, I can barely remember to walk and talk. That's why you often find me stumbling home "Shpeaking like thish". Some people even forget how to drive: "Hmmm, lesh shee...Do I drive on the left shide of the yellow line or the right?...I can't sheem to remember..."

Just Bob · 20 May 2013

Red Right Hand said:
Rather they all just affect the memory. Being drunk is just a interference to the memory. People drink to forget often.
I'm afraid Bobby's right, folks. I know when I drink to forget, I can barely remember to walk and talk. That's why you often find me stumbling home "Shpeaking like thish". Some people even forget how to drive: "Hmmm, lesh shee...Do I drive on the left shide of the yellow line or the right?...I can't sheem to remember..."

Yer Honor, I was sober enough to know I was drunk!

Robert Byers · 21 May 2013

PA Poland said:
Robert Byers said:
PA Poland said:
Robert Byers said:
TomS said:
Robert Byers said: I presume most YEC creationists would agree the brain is unrelated to ones thinking.
That is a mighty sweeping proposition. Unrelated to thinking? Despite it being obvious that blows to the head, consumption of certain chemicals, several diseases, some physical exercises, and even just sleep can have a profound effect on one's thinking? We don't have to make investigations of the electric activity of the brain as correlated with thinking - just drink a few ounces of alcohol and see that there is a relationship.
These things affect thinking but are not evidence they affect the brain.
Examination of REALITY show that they do indeed affect the brain. They alter the activities of the cells that make up the brain, which has affects on thinking. Continuing the blubbering idiocy :
Rather they all just affect the memory. Being drunk is just a interference to the memory. People drink to forget often. I don't think it could be demonstrated a single thing affects our thinking but just affecting our brain. Except where it is only or includes the memory.
Phineas Gage. Took a railroad spike through his brain. ALTERED HIS PERSONALITY without him losing any of his other faculties. The effects of psychoactive drugs demonstrate that you a gibbering imbecile - how, EXACTLY, does a hallucination qualify as 'interference to memory' ? Pretty much all research ever done on brain activity shows that altering brain function alters thinking. You seem to have this pathological need for dualism - there simply MUST BE a tiny Magical Being inside your skull pulling the levers and throwing the switches to make you work.
I do see all problems as simply the issue of the triggering mechanism for the memory. No reason to invoke brain things. Its just implying we are just components of the brain machine.
We ARE components of the brain machine - and it is part of us. Got something resembling EVIDENCE to the contrary ?
In fact its just a middle man between our thinking soul and our body. Animals show this also by having great memories despite little intelligence relatively.
RiiIIiiIIIiiiIIiight ! The EVIDENCE that this Magical Middle Man actually exists is what again ? Oh, right - your pathological fear of evolution and reality forces you to invent magical, undetectable, unknowable beings to 'explain' things that are beyond your limited comprehension. A 'soul' is just what a functioning brain does, not a separate entity. Alter or destroy the brain running the 'soul program', the person ends. A stomach digests food; would you blubber that it merely houses a 'digestion spirit' because you are ignorant of how it truly works ?
Saying cells are affected is saying nothing. The actual machine parts being affected are and need only be seen as the memory part.
Just HOW willfully stupid are you ?! It is not MEMORY that is affected with drugs, twit : IT IS ACTUAL PROCESSING. How often or how readily a neuron will fire can be altered with drugs. This has been known for quite some time. How, EXACTLY, is a drug-induced HALLUCINATION a result of defective memory ? When someone is seeing something that isn't there, it is their PROCESSING that is off kilter, not their memory ! Your willful ignorance is most astounding ! You seem to have this pathological need to see Magical Sky Pixies behind EVERY single thing that is beyond your incredibly limited comprehension. There is no story STUPID or RIDICULOUS enough that you will not resort to to avoid facing reality - if reality shows that drugs alter the brain which alters thinking, you attempt to handwave it all away, psychotically fixated on the silly idea that YOUR ignorance-based, evidence-free gibberings are more relevant than decades of real world observations. Again, twit : Phineas Gage had a railroad spike driven through his brain. HIS MEMORY AND OTHER MENTAL FACULTIES WERE NOT OVERLY DAMAGED (those were the first things the physicians checked), but his personality certainly was. How, EXACTLY, does your silly-arsed 'model' about Magical supernatural beings explain that ?
Actually drugs makes my case. They do affect people exactly as other problems do. Yet the brain is not hurt by drugs or have lingering affects after a episode . This because only the memory is being affected. LSD practically mimics many autisms in its result.
THOSE HAVE GOT TO THE BE THE STUPIDEST COMMENTS I'VE EVER HAD THE MISFORTUNE OF READING ! The brain is indeed hurt by drugs. There ARE sometimes lingering effects. MORE than memory is being affected. I must ask - how far did you have to shove your head up your own arse to state something that mind-numbingly WRONG ? Initiating standard "I don't know anything about anything, but I'll bleat like I'm an expert !" vomitus :
Drugs simply distort the memory/focusing by affecting the triggering mechanism I think. They don't affect the brain at all. The brain is a serious machine and can't be fiddled with.
Drugs WORK BECAUSE THEY AFFECT THE BRAIN, twit ! The brain can indeed be fiddled with. By many different things. You castrated your OWN argument - if drugs didn't affect the brain, THEY COULD NOT AFFECT 'TRIGGERING MECHANISMS' ! In order for your own imbecilic 'model' to work, drugs MUST have an affect on the brain.
Drugs are almost harmless unless used too much including getting addicted. Addition itself a thing of memory . Perhaps affecting the nervous system memory.
Wow - just how big IS your colon anyway ? You keep pulling ever more ridiculous things out of your backside with each passing comment ! Once again, you castrated your own argument - if drugs can affect memory, THEY ARE AFFECTING THE BRAIN. You are merely too willfully stupid to accept or understand that, given your pathological need to believe that there is a supernatural force in your head that does the actual thinking.
Alcohol or drugs do the same thing. They interrupt the ordering of the memory and so how the memory translates information.
And you castrated your own argument yet again - if alcohol and drugs are affecting memory, THEY ARE AFFECTING THE BRAIN. 'Interrupting how memory translates information' is just an imbecile's way of saying 'chemicals alter the way the brain works', which means your silly 'the brain does not think - the magical being in your head does !!' confabulation is unsupported and wrong.

No I think I'm right. Drugs just affect the memory. They distort our thinking and so imagination. Yet its not these thinking processes that are affected but just a ordinary triggering mechanism . Yes the memory is in the brain but its not the thinking process itself. Getting drunk simply makes one forget thoughts, twist them, and distort memories of walking properly etc.

Robert Byers · 21 May 2013

Helena Constantine said: Have you ever seen a baby whose mother was addicted to crack? Or even just used alcohol while pregnant? There is no limit to either your inhumanity or your ignorance, is there?
Robert Byers said: They do affect people exactly as other problems do. Yet thge brain is not hurt by drugs or have lingering affects after a episode . This because only the memory is being affected. LSD practically mimics many autisms in its result. Drugs simply distort the memory/focusing by affecting the triggering mechanism I think. They don't affect the brain at all. The brain is a serious machine and can't be fiddled with. Drugs are almost harmless unless used too much including getting addicted. Addition itself a thing of memory . Perhaps affecting the nervous system memory. Alcohol or drugs do the same thing. They interrupt the ordering of the memory and so how the memory translates information.

In humanity? Well I haven't seen them but know they exist. Whether alcohol or any damage while pregnant I would insist the child is only hurt by its memory having been affected. Thats all. Its not the memory itself but the triggering mechanism which is so important to learning for man and beast. Yet with these children there is nothing wrong with their thinking. They are in there no different then anyone else. They are trapped only.

PA Poland · 21 May 2013

Robert Byers said:
PA Poland said:
Robert Byers said:
PA Poland said:
Robert Byers said:
TomS said:
Robert Byers said: I presume most YEC creationists would agree the brain is unrelated to ones thinking.
That is a mighty sweeping proposition. Unrelated to thinking? Despite it being obvious that blows to the head, consumption of certain chemicals, several diseases, some physical exercises, and even just sleep can have a profound effect on one's thinking? We don't have to make investigations of the electric activity of the brain as correlated with thinking - just drink a few ounces of alcohol and see that there is a relationship.
These things affect thinking but are not evidence they affect the brain.
Examination of REALITY show that they do indeed affect the brain. They alter the activities of the cells that make up the brain, which has affects on thinking. Continuing the blubbering idiocy :
Rather they all just affect the memory. Being drunk is just a interference to the memory. People drink to forget often. I don't think it could be demonstrated a single thing affects our thinking but just affecting our brain. Except where it is only or includes the memory.
Phineas Gage. Took a railroad spike through his brain. ALTERED HIS PERSONALITY without him losing any of his other faculties. The effects of psychoactive drugs demonstrate that you a gibbering imbecile - how, EXACTLY, does a hallucination qualify as 'interference to memory' ? Pretty much all research ever done on brain activity shows that altering brain function alters thinking. You seem to have this pathological need for dualism - there simply MUST BE a tiny Magical Being inside your skull pulling the levers and throwing the switches to make you work.
I do see all problems as simply the issue of the triggering mechanism for the memory. No reason to invoke brain things. Its just implying we are just components of the brain machine.
We ARE components of the brain machine - and it is part of us. Got something resembling EVIDENCE to the contrary ?
In fact its just a middle man between our thinking soul and our body. Animals show this also by having great memories despite little intelligence relatively.
RiiIIiiIIIiiiIIiight ! The EVIDENCE that this Magical Middle Man actually exists is what again ? Oh, right - your pathological fear of evolution and reality forces you to invent magical, undetectable, unknowable beings to 'explain' things that are beyond your limited comprehension. A 'soul' is just what a functioning brain does, not a separate entity. Alter or destroy the brain running the 'soul program', the person ends. A stomach digests food; would you blubber that it merely houses a 'digestion spirit' because you are ignorant of how it truly works ?
Saying cells are affected is saying nothing. The actual machine parts being affected are and need only be seen as the memory part.
Just HOW willfully stupid are you ?! It is not MEMORY that is affected with drugs, twit : IT IS ACTUAL PROCESSING. How often or how readily a neuron will fire can be altered with drugs. This has been known for quite some time. How, EXACTLY, is a drug-induced HALLUCINATION a result of defective memory ? When someone is seeing something that isn't there, it is their PROCESSING that is off kilter, not their memory ! Your willful ignorance is most astounding ! You seem to have this pathological need to see Magical Sky Pixies behind EVERY single thing that is beyond your incredibly limited comprehension. There is no story STUPID or RIDICULOUS enough that you will not resort to to avoid facing reality - if reality shows that drugs alter the brain which alters thinking, you attempt to handwave it all away, psychotically fixated on the silly idea that YOUR ignorance-based, evidence-free gibberings are more relevant than decades of real world observations. Again, twit : Phineas Gage had a railroad spike driven through his brain. HIS MEMORY AND OTHER MENTAL FACULTIES WERE NOT OVERLY DAMAGED (those were the first things the physicians checked), but his personality certainly was. How, EXACTLY, does your silly-arsed 'model' about Magical supernatural beings explain that ?
Actually drugs makes my case. They do affect people exactly as other problems do. Yet the brain is not hurt by drugs or have lingering affects after a episode . This because only the memory is being affected. LSD practically mimics many autisms in its result.
THOSE HAVE GOT TO THE BE THE STUPIDEST COMMENTS I'VE EVER HAD THE MISFORTUNE OF READING ! The brain is indeed hurt by drugs. There ARE sometimes lingering effects. MORE than memory is being affected. I must ask - how far did you have to shove your head up your own arse to state something that mind-numbingly WRONG ? Initiating standard "I don't know anything about anything, but I'll bleat like I'm an expert !" vomitus :
Drugs simply distort the memory/focusing by affecting the triggering mechanism I think. They don't affect the brain at all. The brain is a serious machine and can't be fiddled with.
Drugs WORK BECAUSE THEY AFFECT THE BRAIN, twit ! The brain can indeed be fiddled with. By many different things. You castrated your OWN argument - if drugs didn't affect the brain, THEY COULD NOT AFFECT 'TRIGGERING MECHANISMS' ! In order for your own imbecilic 'model' to work, drugs MUST have an affect on the brain.
Drugs are almost harmless unless used too much including getting addicted. Addition itself a thing of memory . Perhaps affecting the nervous system memory.
Wow - just how big IS your colon anyway ? You keep pulling ever more ridiculous things out of your backside with each passing comment ! Once again, you castrated your own argument - if drugs can affect memory, THEY ARE AFFECTING THE BRAIN. You are merely too willfully stupid to accept or understand that, given your pathological need to believe that there is a supernatural force in your head that does the actual thinking.
Alcohol or drugs do the same thing. They interrupt the ordering of the memory and so how the memory translates information.
And you castrated your own argument yet again - if alcohol and drugs are affecting memory, THEY ARE AFFECTING THE BRAIN. 'Interrupting how memory translates information' is just an imbecile's way of saying 'chemicals alter the way the brain works', which means your silly 'the brain does not think - the magical being in your head does !!' confabulation is unsupported and wrong.
No I think I'm right.

And the EVIDENCE that you are right is what again ? Oh, right - YOU DON'T HAVE ANY ! As you demonstrate, any drooling, slack-witted imbecile can THINK he is right - that doesn't mean he is right.

Drugs just affect the memory. They distort our thinking and so imagination. Yet its not these thinking processes that are affected but just a ordinary triggering mechanism . Yes the memory is in the brain but its not the thinking process itself. Getting drunk simply makes one forget thoughts, twist them, and distort memories of walking properly etc.

Just how stupid are you willing to look ? Decades of brain research SHOW that chemicals alter brain function and thinking. Again, twit : how is a drug induced hallucination a flaw of MEMORY ? Again, buffoon : cases like Phineas Gage show that personality and thinking reside in the brain - for how else could brain damage change it ? Again, simpleton : actual real world EVIDENCE shows that chemicals affect brain function. Researchers have labeled drug compounds and WATCHED THEM enter nerve cells and alter its behaviour (suppress firing, enhance firing, etc). Some people take medication to alleviate problems such as schizophrenia and other such things - were your brainless gibberings valid, there could be no such treatments. Being drunk is not 'forgetting how to walk properly' - it is nerve cells not working properly because of the alcohol. People become tolerant of drugs (both medicinal and abused) - it takes more of them to have the same effect. Sane and rational folk discovered that is due to alterations of brain chemistry (altered protein expression, etc); how does your stone stupid ignorant 'model' of the brain being immune to any significant change explain that ? Memory is NOT like a CD ROM, it is an ACTIVE RECONSTRUCTION. So if a chemical disturbs memory, IT IS DISTURING BRAIN FUNCTION. Addiction is generally due to REMEMBERING (like how great you feel when you shoot up, and how horrible you feel when you don't).

DS · 21 May 2013

So that would be a no. Robert has no idea what an MRI is, what it measures or how is shows the relationship between brain activity and thought processes. Well Bobby boy, your ignorant opinions will be ignored since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and no desire to learn anything. You lose again.

Tenncrain · 21 May 2013

Another reminder:

Robert Byers, When are you going to get around to discussing SINE insertions? Here's a link to the relevant post: http://pandasthumb.org/bw/index.html#comment-300136 What about finally giving us a full review of an evo-devo book like Sean B Carroll’s Endless Forms Most Beautiful (click here)? Remember, it's a popular level book for the public. Are you ever going to address this Christian link about Christian scientists that accept and routinely use radiometric dating? You repeatedly look away and run from this (Byers, click here to see).

As this matter is somewhat offtopic for this thread, it's ok if any reply by Byers is posted - or moved - to the Bathroom Wall.